He can run, but can he hide?

Me no fry said :

Jim Jones said :

Fine. Whatever.

I’m still interested where all this money for extra police officers is going to come from and whether everyone will happily pay more tax in order to pay for it.

Not sure about the ACT, but in NSW funding for the Highway Patrol has been cut over the past 15 years, as politicians went for the cheaper option of automated speed limit enforcement, with its not-incidental increase in income.

So, in NSW at least you could argue that rather than finding any extra money to pay for extra police they (the state government) should be restoring funding for a vital component of road safety to levels that were acceptable before the easy money of speed cameras muddied the waters.

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that it *won’t* cost money to employ more police?

johnboy said :

And he also now has the world’s best Facebook profile pic.

Combine it with a status update of:

“Can you believe that the cops think this was me travelling at 200kms/hr+ on the parkway?”

and he should be alright.

Jim Jones said :

Fine. Whatever.

I’m still interested where all this money for extra police officers is going to come from and whether everyone will happily pay more tax in order to pay for it.

Not sure about the ACT, but in NSW funding for the Highway Patrol has been cut over the past 15 years, as politicians went for the cheaper option of automated speed limit enforcement, with its not-incidental increase in income.

So, in NSW at least you could argue that rather than finding any extra money to pay for extra police they (the state government) should be restoring funding for a vital component of road safety to levels that were acceptable before the easy money of speed cameras muddied the waters.

Davo111 said :

If hes smart he will get a new set of leathers and lay low for a while :/

You mean he’ll ride his ducati instead for the next few weeks….

johnboy said :

And he also now has the world’s best Facebook profile pic.

Might be interesting to do a Tineye search in a month or two and see who is using it…

I don’t know my Agusta’s very well (except for the pic of one on my wall with a naked chick on it) but my guess is:

2007 MV Agusta F4-1000R 1+1
http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/mv_agusta_f4_1000r_1+1_2007.php

2006 MV Agusta F4 1000 R
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/mv/mv_agusta_f4_1000r%2006.htm

It has the red stripe in two locations in the same spot on the picture. Not sure which ones were actually sold in Australia though with that colour scheme.

not exactly a ‘cheap’ bike (AU$25-30,000ish? in 07), and not many in Canberra/QBN I would have thought. Should be easy for the police to track down this model with this colour in Canberra. Surely it’s just an easy search with only a handful of results?

johnboy said :

And he also now has the world’s best Facebook profile pic.

LOL, ITS A TRAP!!!!

On a serious note, it wouldnt be hard to cross reference registrations of that superbike with the residential address to get a small suspect list. Then all you would need to do is wait until he goes for another fun ride and tail him.

If hes smart he will get a new set of leathers and lay low for a while :/

KB1971 said :

Special G said :

A Datsun 120Y bother could do 137km/h on the Bindubi St hill and had a much smaller engine than the Capella.

Police can put a charge before court based on a speed estimate. Simply looking at your car and knowing that you are speeding based on experience. That experience can be then tested in Court.

Fail on both counts.

You must have had a hot 120Y, mine couldnt do that down hill with a tailwind.

haha, the Capella, I had one of those and there is a rumour it hit the ton once going downhill on Belconnen way, the driver was very young and stupid though…

Jim Jones said :

Fine. Whatever.

I’m still interested where all this money for extra police officers is going to come from and whether everyone will happily pay more tax in order to pay for it.

Bear Tax

Fine. Whatever.

I’m still interested where all this money for extra police officers is going to come from and whether everyone will happily pay more tax in order to pay for it.

Jim Jones said :

The Axe Man said :

Jim Jones said :

No. I’m not saying anything, I’m asking what these “more effective ways of reducing speed than speed cameras” are.

“More police, in marked cars, on the roads” does seem pretty cost ineffective, employing a stack of police officers to drive around just so people will slow down. It would also necessitate a drastic increase in police budgets across the country (it’s not like the police don’t have other things to do). Is everyone happy to pay substantially increased taxes to fund this initiative?

As for speed cameras, I’m pretty sure WMC has some pretty conclusive data that speed cameras do have a result of people reducing driving speeds. Regardless, at the very least, speed cameras reduce speeds in certain areas in a cost neutral (and even beneficial) fashion. How is that a bad thing?

I’m not disagreeing that speed cameras reduce speed for the areas of their control, I disagree that they have an effect on slowing down drivers elsewhere. If you can point me to data that indicates otherwise I’d be interested to see it.

I never said speed cameras were a bad thing either.
As for more police on the roads at least they would pick up more than just speeding drivers, such as those breaking all sorts of road laws. I think that is something more important than picking up someone doing 5-10k’s over the limit

Whether SC’s are cost neutral or not should not be the consideration don’t you think?

The Axe Man said :

Jim Jones said :

I’m asking: what are they? *What* are more effective ways of ensuring drivers/riders stick to the posted speed limit than speed cameras?

More police, in marked cars, on the roads.

Are you saying that speed cameras change peoples driving habits so that they stick to the speed limit?

No. I’m not saying anything, I’m asking what these “more effective ways of reducing speed than speed cameras” are.

“More police, in marked cars, on the roads” does seem pretty cost ineffective, employing a stack of police officers to drive around just so people will slow down. It would also necessitate a drastic increase in police budgets across the country (it’s not like the police don’t have other things to do). Is everyone happy to pay substantially increased taxes to fund this initiative?

As for speed cameras, I’m pretty sure WMC has some pretty conclusive data that speed cameras do have a result of people reducing driving speeds. Regardless, at the very least, speed cameras reduce speeds in certain areas in a cost neutral (and even beneficial) fashion. How is that a bad thing?

fgzk said :

Has anyone searched facebook etc, for a photo of the colour coded rider and bike? he has gone to some effort to stand out.

Check out post #51. At the very least, he may be able to ‘assist police’.

Jim Jones said :

I’m asking: what are they? *What* are more effective ways of ensuring drivers/riders stick to the posted speed limit than speed cameras?

More police, in marked cars, on the roads.

Are you saying that speed cameras change peoples driving habits so that they stick to the speed limit?

SpecialG “Police can put a charge before court based on a speed estimate. Simply looking at your car and knowing that you are speeding based on experience. That experience can be then tested in Court. “

I think this would bring a caution not a ticket as the exact speed could not be verified. Maybe there is a way of “speed certifying” individual officers. Like they do with undercover officers.

But seriously if you guys want to get rid of cameras you should get the rest of the community and have a protest. If everyone didn’t speed for a year in protest then the cameras might get turned off as a financial drain. You might even bankrupt the government. They would have to introduce legislation to fine the leaders of the protest.

Has anyone searched facebook etc, for a photo of the colour coded rider and bike? he has gone to some effort to stand out.

Special G said :

A Datsun 120Y bother could do 137km/h on the Bindubi St hill and had a much smaller engine than the Capella.

Police can put a charge before court based on a speed estimate. Simply looking at your car and knowing that you are speeding based on experience. That experience can be then tested in Court.

Fail on both counts.

You must have had a hot 120Y, mine couldnt do that down hill with a tailwind.

nhand42 said :

bloviate said :

I can go way faster on my Ducati.

Not only is this guy dumb, but poor aswell

First rule of motorcycles; a Ducati owner can’t go 5 minutes without reminding you that he owns a Ducati.

Hahahhahahaa & they have been making mecahnics out of motorcycle riders for 100 years…..

Lardman said :

KB1971: I still wouldn’t even try that at anything but a deserted road.

Absolutely agree with you but you are really never truly alone on any public road. All it takes at 200km/h to wipe you out is a wayward Glah & your curtains.

Its just that the parkway is really only busy for 2 hours of the day & it only takes a bike like that about 500m – 1km to get to 200.

A Datsun 120Y bother could do 137km/h on the Bindubi St hill and had a much smaller engine than the Capella.

Police can put a charge before court based on a speed estimate. Simply looking at your car and knowing that you are speeding based on experience. That experience can be then tested in Court.

Fail on both counts.

troll-sniffer said :

DJ said :

Troll-Sniffer

You and other doubters weren’t there. Since when does a magistrate take the word of a citizen against a cop in a one on one situation? And I didn’t have any evidence to produce, just my word against the copulators.

And for all you above who are so sure I failed the attitude test, how about bothering to actually read what I posted.

I didn’t have any evidence to produce you say? Yet you posted:

In independent tests I confirmed that starting from 60 km/hr as I crested the rise, flat out I was lucky to be doing 110km/hr at the point the copulator had parked his lying carcasse, let alone way back where I did overtake safely…

DJ said :

Troll-Sniffer

do you expect me to believe that, in this day and age, a Magistrate took the sworn statement of a Police Officer over yours and all the evidence you produced and in a pang of sympathy only fined you half the fine? So unlikely in fact that it’s coloured everything you’ve posted in my view. I’ve got to call BS.

You and other doubters weren’t there. Since when does a magistrate take the word of a citizen against a cop in a one on one situation? And I didn’t have any evidence to produce, just my word against the copulators.

And for all you above who are so sure I failed the attitude test, how about bothering to actually read what I posted.

Pork Hunt said :

threepaws said :

Here’s a thought – don’t break the law by speeding and then you will never have to whinge about ‘revenue raising’ speed cameras again. Quite simple really.

Speaking from experience?

Believe it or not, it IS possible to go over the speed limit in a 46 year old car.

DJ said :

troll-sniffer said :

georgesgenitals said :

“Superintendent of Traffic, Mark Colbran said this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Unless they get a witness, I don’t think they have a choice.

As if. Since when do cops need independent witnesses to issue a summons or sworn statement.

Many a young driver has suffered at the hands of the cops who can and do make up offences and are (obviously) believed over the victim.

Like speed cameras, it’s just a risk of driving.

If those copulators did get the bike’s rego number all they need to do is find the bike, then the rider, and he’s gone mate, gone.

You have obviously got an axe to grind. Sniff harder and come up with real examples not unsubstantiated anti-police dribble. Cops who can and do make up offences?

Real examples……cops who can and do make up offences? OK then DJ, not quite making up an offence but the senior AFP member who was cautioned instead of receiving the 4 points and appropriate fine comes close yes? Thankfully the Herald Sun article today and the new thread on here can shed some light on these matters instead of being swept under the sinister rug, which by the way is so full there’s obviously not enough room lft for anything else. One simple fact, the public eye is the best oversight commitee you can find. And it doesn’t cost a cent!

nhand42 said :

bloviate said :

I can go way faster on my Ducati.

Not only is this guy dumb, but poor aswell

First rule of motorcycles; a Ducati owner can’t go 5 minutes without reminding you that he owns a Ducati.

Followed by a wash and polish at the 10 minute mark…

threepaws said :

Here’s a thought – don’t break the law by speeding and then you will never have to whinge about ‘revenue raising’ speed cameras again. Quite simple really.

Speaking from experience?

bloviate said :

I can go way faster on my Ducati.

Not only is this guy dumb, but poor aswell

First rule of motorcycles; a Ducati owner can’t go 5 minutes without reminding you that he owns a Ducati.

Troll-Sniffer

Seems you like to use colourful names to describe those around you in a negative way. It’s a shame that you are using this forum to point out the unjust way you feel you have been treated. I doubt the veracity of your polite nature.

If your statement is true, then I stand corrected in relation to the Court comments about your posting but honestly, do you expect me to believe that, in this day and age, a Magistrate took the sworn statement of a Police Officer over yours and all the evidence you produced and in a pang of sympathy only fined you half the fine? So unlikely in fact that it’s coloured everything you’ve posted in my view. I’ve got to call BS.

It sounds like Troll-sniffer gets police intervention because he ‘fails the attitude test’ so often mentioned on other posts.

I’m all for speed cameras. If I get caught, fair cop I was breaking the law, pay the fine. I’m for fixed ones, mobile ones, even ones with disco balls or whatever. As other posters have said, if everyone went under the LIMIT then the cameras would become economically unviable.

We would also be living in a land of unicorns and fairy floss

Here’s a thought – don’t break the law by speeding and then you will never have to whinge about ‘revenue raising’ speed cameras again. Quite simple really.

Madman said :

brentosfresh said :

brentosfresh said :

The camera was turned around as it was giving false reading off the armco railing of the bridge. As cars and more specifically heavy vehicles were hitting the expansion joint in the bridge, The bridge had movement and was giving false readings to the radar unit in the camera. There are actually some photos of ACTION busses doing a claimed 200kmh down that road, and as soon as this was noted the camera was disabled and was not working for a considerable lengh of time and speeding fines were revoked.

As for cameras only being there because they make money, of course they are, if you were running a business at a constant loss would you continue to run it or shut it down??? Pretty plain and simple if you ask me. No one speeds, no money is made, maintainence costs on cameras outweighs the income they are making why keep them???

This is what i have been told from a very very credible source anyway

I’m not a big mathemetician but movement in a bridge I wouldn’t think could outread the camera that much. Would this mean we could contest in court similar if we have been done for speeding on a bridge?
And…. If a police car was behind us on the same bridge with a radar doing the same speed, would we be read as a parked car?

if a police car is following you with a radar im not sure if they use that or their speedo to get your speed, or if they radar is used could they not use a differential??? Radar says car infront is doing 0kmh, car speedo is telling radar car is doing 200kmh therefore is car infront not doing 200kmh??? or Radar says car infront is doing -30kmh, car speedo is telling radar car is doing 150kmh therefore is car infront not doing 120kmh???

im not a mathematician either, seams pretty basic though, and as for bridge movement, im not 100% sure what was causing it, i just know it was turned around for reasons outside my full knowledge. and that it wasnt done for more revenue raising. If anything shouldnt it be less likely to catch speeding motorists now??? Look at the photo of that bike that started this discussion, pretty sure any motorbike can speed through there and not get done 😉

The Axe Man said :

Jim Jones said :

The Axe Man said :

Regardless there are other more effective means of speed control over and above speed cameras and front number plates on bikes

What?

I suppose I could have constructed that sentence better.
I’ll try again

‘There are more effective ways to ensure drivers and riders stick to the posted speed limit rather than speed cameras and forward facing number plates on bikes’

Or was the problem the statement rather than the format?

I’m asking: what are they? *What* are more effective ways of ensuring drivers/riders stick to the posted speed limit than speed cameras?

It was obviously the good Super Grimm. After all he has form!

brentosfresh said :

brentosfresh said :

The camera was turned around as it was giving false reading off the armco railing of the bridge. As cars and more specifically heavy vehicles were hitting the expansion joint in the bridge, The bridge had movement and was giving false readings to the radar unit in the camera. There are actually some photos of ACTION busses doing a claimed 200kmh down that road, and as soon as this was noted the camera was disabled and was not working for a considerable lengh of time and speeding fines were revoked.

As for cameras only being there because they make money, of course they are, if you were running a business at a constant loss would you continue to run it or shut it down??? Pretty plain and simple if you ask me. No one speeds, no money is made, maintainence costs on cameras outweighs the income they are making why keep them???

This is what i have been told from a very very credible source anyway

I’m not a big mathemetician but movement in a bridge I wouldn’t think could outread the camera that much. Would this mean we could contest in court similar if we have been done for speeding on a bridge?
And…. If a police car was behind us on the same bridge with a radar doing the same speed, would we be read as a parked car?

brentosfresh said :

The camera was turned around as it was giving false reading off the armco railing of the bridge. As cars and more specifically heavy vehicles were hitting the expansion joint in the bridge, The bridge had movement and was giving false readings to the radar unit in the camera. There are actually some photos of ACTION busses doing a claimed 200kmh down that road, and as soon as this was noted the camera was disabled and was not working for a considerable lengh of time and speeding fines were revoked.

As for cameras only being there because they make money, of course they are, if you were running a business at a constant loss would you continue to run it or shut it down??? Pretty plain and simple if you ask me. No one speeds, no money is made, maintainence costs on cameras outweighs the income they are making why keep them???

This is what i have been told from a very very credible source anyway

The camera was turned around as it was giving false reading off the armco railing of the bridge. As cars and more specifically heavy vehicles were hitting the expansion joint in the bridge, The bridge had movement and was giving false readings to the radar unit in the camera. There are actually some photos of ACTION busses doing a claimed 200kmh down that road, and as soon as this was noted the camera was disabled and was not working for a considerable lengh of time and speeding fines were revoked.

As for cameras only being there because they make money, of course they are, if you were running a business at a constant loss would you continue to run it or shut it down??? Pretty plain and simple if you ask me. No one speeds, no money is made, maintainence costs on cameras outweighs the income they are making why keep them???

http://tinyurl.com/39jprq9 – ask for ‘Doc’.

Jim Jones said :

The Axe Man said :

Regardless there are other more effective means of speed control over and above speed cameras and front number plates on bikes

What?

I suppose I could have constructed that sentence better.
I’ll try again

‘There are more effective ways to ensure drivers and riders stick to the posted speed limit rather than speed cameras and forward facing number plates on bikes’

Or was the problem the statement rather than the format?

brentosfresh said :

georgesgenitals said :

The speed cameras on the Monaro Hwy near Hume (both directions) take photos from behind. My wife got one and I looked at the photo…

whats that have to do with the one on the Tuggeranong parkway taking photos from the front, as i have said that is the only fixed camera in the ACT that takes front on photos.

Yup – it being the only one taking photos from the front and the only one at the bottom of a steep hill is more the proof it’s been turned around for a raise in revenue.

Perception will always win until fact is given…

troll-sniffer said :

So don’t tell me the pigs don’t lie in court and make up offences. I am walking proof that they do. And before you go off on some tangent about my attitude etc, on both occasions I was polite and reasonable despite the provocation.

I don’t believe you. I think you’re exaggerating, at the very least. Living up to your name, perhaps.

brentosfresh said :

I hope everyone realises that the cameras are there to make money, they also cost the government money so if people dont speed then they will pull them down because they will cost more than they make.

So they only keep these cameras operational because they turn a profit?

brentosfresh said :

This is infact incorrect and very misleading, that is not why it was turned around there is plenty of flat road there even if the car was heavy to not be speeding there, and at the end of the day, if your speeding your speeding be it a heavy car or not, or cruise control or not. I hope everyone realises that the cameras are there to make money, they also cost the government money so if people dont speed then they will pull them down because they will cost more than they make. I totally agree that they are not ideal. I dislike the things they do not stop speeding, they do not save lives and at the end of the day they are just an income cow for the ACT revenue office.

Which bit is incorrect… The bit that it was originally taking photos from the rear! Cause in fact it was.
If this camera was taking photos from the rear and is now fixed taking photos from the front then I’m pretty sure I can draw a conclusion here.
I mean – how many people are not worried that they’re doing a little extra speed in this location due to the hill?

Yes I agree speeding is speeding but if its the point of a car being set on 100 the whole way down the parkway and the car increases it’s speed for that hill in the one place the camera is pointing directly at and the car reducing it’s speed back to the set limit after the descent, I don’t see being an offence which warrants an infraction. A police officer following a car in the same situation would not book a person in this circumstance and therefore was barely an offence.

The cameras don’t just tax your pocket, they tax your families and loved ones as they somewhat shoe they linked to an increase in accidents in the areas they are placed.

georgesgenitals said :

The speed cameras on the Monaro Hwy near Hume (both directions) take photos from behind. My wife got one and I looked at the photo…

whats that have to do with the one on the Tuggeranong parkway taking photos from the front, as i have said that is the only fixed camera in the ACT that takes front on photos.

Speed cameras are purely and simply a voluntary additional tax.

*gasp*

How awful!

DJ said :

troll-sniffer said :

georgesgenitals said :

“Superintendent of Traffic, Mark Colbran said this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Unless they get a witness, I don’t think they have a choice.

As if. Since when do cops need independent witnesses to issue a summons or sworn statement.

Many a young driver has suffered at the hands of the cops who can and do make up offences and are (obviously) believed over the victim.

Like speed cameras, it’s just a risk of driving.

If those copulators did get the bike’s rego number all they need to do is find the bike, then the rider, and he’s gone mate, gone.

You have obviously got an axe to grind. Sniff harder and come up with real examples not unsubstantiated anti-police dribble. Cops who can and do make up offences? Please – you always have the option to take the infringement to Court and challenge it there – reasonable doubt is the lelvel to meet and if you can’t then obviously in the eyes of the Court/community you were wrong. Simple.

I’ll wager you haven’t been to Court regarding traffic offences given to you and now you hold a grudge… or have you had a reason to receive one and knew you were wrong and simply don’t have the intergity to admit it?

This fool on the bike gives the rest of us riders a bad name. Go to a track and go nuts instead. Not difficult.

If you don’t understand the Court process and want to have a go at coppers without evidence – go and sit in Court when traffic matters are being heard and you’ll realise you are not as right as you think.

Two personal examples:

Driving up Antill Street in my XA Falcon, drove past a cop just getting on his bike after booking someone else. Note, I just drove past the wally. Having just driven past a copulator getting onto his bike, about to head in the same direction as me, I made sure I sat on the speed limit, as one would. Up near the Phillip Ave roundabout he pulls me over. Tells me I was doing 10 mph over the limit. Incredulously I pointed out to this dimwit that I had just driven past him, and as a result I was doubly careful to keep right on the limit. Took it to court, but when it’s a copulator’s word against mine, I lost. Copped a fine.

Second example:

Driving down Bindubi Street, an old lady was doing 60 km/hr, as we crested the hill, I overtook as the road was clear. I was driving a Mazda Capella 1600 cc rocket. As soon as I had overtaken the car I backed off to ensure I was doing 80km/hr. Further down the hill a copulator pulls me over and avers I was doing 137 km/hr in an 80 zone. I argued that it was impossible. Capellas just don’t have the ability. In independent tests I confirmed that starting from 60 km/hr as I crested the rise, flat out I was lucky to be doing 110km/hr at the point the copulator had parked his lying carcasse, let alone way back where I did overtake safely. Took that one to court, the beak was symapthetic but had to take the sworn copulator’s statements over mine. Only copped half the normal fine, I think the beak might have believed me deep down.

So don’t tell me the pigs don’t lie in court and make up offences. I am walking proof that they do. And before you go off on some tangent about my attitude etc, on both occasions I was polite and reasonable despite the provocation.

brentosfresh said :

The Axe Man said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

Another good reason to have a number plate on the front of the Bike. That’s is if indeed its registered.

Or, we could, you know, have the camera take photos from behind

The AMC is against it
http://www.amc.asn.au/node/4

and various state based organisations
http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/33.html

How about we have identifying marks on the sides of cars so we can take a photo of the side rather than the back or front

there are reasons as to why that camera will only take front photos, some of which i cant go into, Also as for side photos the cameras have to be pointed at on-coming or away-going traffic, or they cannot detect the correct speed.

The speed cameras on the Monaro Hwy near Hume (both directions) take photos from behind. My wife got one and I looked at the photo…

Madman said :

Loxmyf said :

I was under the impression that the fixed speed cameras were set up to only take a shot from the rear, where the motorbike would have had a number plate displayed. Was he riding on the wrong side of the road?

I checked google maps and the Cotter Rd cameras don’t appear to be behind armco, and failed to locate the Hindmarsh Dr cameras… I guess the age of the images in google maps is sus.

This particular camera has been turned around as it is just after the large hill with the exit ramp to woden.
They originally had the camera taking photos of the rear of vehicles but probably thought they would increase revenue by turning it around to get those people speeding that little bit more after the hill – specially if you have cruise control onj and a heavy car.

This is infact incorrect and very misleading, that is not why it was turned around there is plenty of flat road there even if the car was heavy to not be speeding there, and at the end of the day, if your speeding your speeding be it a heavy car or not, or cruise control or not. I hope everyone realises that the cameras are there to make money, they also cost the government money so if people dont speed then they will pull them down because they will cost more than they make. I totally agree that they are not ideal. I dislike the things they do not stop speeding, they do not save lives and at the end of the day they are just an income cow for the ACT revenue office.

54-11 said :

Rawhide Kid, if you gave the suggestion of a front licence plate a bit of thought, you’d realise that there are a myriad of safety and design issues. That’s why no western country has them now, and why, when they did early last century, they were removed.

If you will look at this picture of my grandfather on his NSW registered triumph in the early thirties, you’ll see that front number plates wouldn’t have helped much with speed cameras back then. Bet they cut some people up pretty good though.

Loxmyf said :

I was under the impression that the fixed speed cameras were set up to only take a shot from the rear, where the motorbike would have had a number plate displayed. Was he riding on the wrong side of the road?

I checked google maps and the Cotter Rd cameras don’t appear to be behind armco, and failed to locate the Hindmarsh Dr cameras… I guess the age of the images in google maps is sus.

No he was not on the wrong side of the road, and indeed the cameras on the parkway are not behind an armco the hindmarsh drive cameras are indeed there and the southbound camera is infact the only fixed speed/redlight camera in Canberra that takes photos of the front.

The Axe Man said :

brentosfresh said :

there are reasons as to why that camera will only take front photos, some of which i cant go into, Also as for side photos the cameras have to be pointed at on-coming or away-going traffic, or they cannot detect the correct speed.

I was being a tad facetious with my comment to take photos of the sides of cars.

Why can’t you ‘go into’ only cameras taking front photos?
Red light / speed cameras cameras seem to do ok taking photos from behind

Regardless there are other more effective means of speed control over and above speed cameras and front number plates on bikes

Not meant to for work purposes. Thats all, also its not really my point to comment as i am not 100% sure of all the information (I know some but not all), and personally I don’t want to be conveying incorrect information.

Loxmyf said :

I was under the impression that the fixed speed cameras were set up to only take a shot from the rear, where the motorbike would have had a number plate displayed. Was he riding on the wrong side of the road?

I checked google maps and the Cotter Rd cameras don’t appear to be behind armco, and failed to locate the Hindmarsh Dr cameras… I guess the age of the images in google maps is sus.

This particular camera has been turned around as it is just after the large hill with the exit ramp to woden.
They originally had the camera taking photos of the rear of vehicles but probably thought they would increase revenue by turning it around to get those people speeding that little bit more after the hill – specially if you have cruise control onj and a heavy car.

troll-sniffer said :

georgesgenitals said :

“Superintendent of Traffic, Mark Colbran said this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Unless they get a witness, I don’t think they have a choice.

As if. Since when do cops need independent witnesses to issue a summons or sworn statement.

Many a young driver has suffered at the hands of the cops who can and do make up offences and are (obviously) believed over the victim.

Like speed cameras, it’s just a risk of driving.

If those copulators did get the bike’s rego number all they need to do is find the bike, then the rider, and he’s gone mate, gone.

You have obviously got an axe to grind. Sniff harder and come up with real examples not unsubstantiated anti-police dribble. Cops who can and do make up offences? Please – you always have the option to take the infringement to Court and challenge it there – reasonable doubt is the lelvel to meet and if you can’t then obviously in the eyes of the Court/community you were wrong. Simple.

I’ll wager you haven’t been to Court regarding traffic offences given to you and now you hold a grudge… or have you had a reason to receive one and knew you were wrong and simply don’t have the intergity to admit it?

This fool on the bike gives the rest of us riders a bad name. Go to a track and go nuts instead. Not difficult.

If you don’t understand the Court process and want to have a go at coppers without evidence – go and sit in Court when traffic matters are being heard and you’ll realise you are not as right as you think.

To the best of my knowledge, all ACT speed cameras take a photo of the rear of the vehicle, EXCEPT the one that appears to be pointing in the wrong direction southbound on the Parkway near the Hindmarsh Drive overpass. Mention of this camera has appeared here previously. It does look like that location.

Makes sense if he was spotted at Glenloch and chased from Cotter Road towards Tuggers.

The Axe Man said :

Regardless there are other more effective means of speed control over and above speed cameras and front number plates on bikes

What?

Lardman said :

Unless the coppers chasing had a witness to his rear number plate, that’s circumstantial evidence and I don’t think you’d be able to use it @RAGD

That said though, fair effort doing 200+ down a busy road in the middle of the day. He’d have a job in touring bikes if he wanted…

Depends, if the witness is some bogan, good for nothing tool, then yeah, his opinion will count for naught, but if the witness is a respactable pillar of society then it’s worth something to the case. A positive ID, cross reference with the the same bike parked in his garage, the owners known movements (like he works at such and such and lives at such and such and would have been going down the road at such and such o’clock etc etc), a record of speeding offences, his neighbours stating he comes and goes at light speed and he’ll go away….or at least get smacked hard on the bot-bot.

High Speed Temporary Australian!

brentosfresh said :

there are reasons as to why that camera will only take front photos, some of which i cant go into, Also as for side photos the cameras have to be pointed at on-coming or away-going traffic, or they cannot detect the correct speed.

I was being a tad facetious with my comment to take photos of the sides of cars.

Why can’t you ‘go into’ only cameras taking front photos?
Red light / speed cameras cameras seem to do ok taking photos from behind

Regardless there are other more effective means of speed control over and above speed cameras and front number plates on bikes

I was under the impression that the fixed speed cameras were set up to only take a shot from the rear, where the motorbike would have had a number plate displayed. Was he riding on the wrong side of the road?

I checked google maps and the Cotter Rd cameras don’t appear to be behind armco, and failed to locate the Hindmarsh Dr cameras… I guess the age of the images in google maps is sus.

I’m not saying this one person makes speed cameras pointless, rather cameras simply don’t acheive their aim of increasing road safety.

Recent figures show more accidents have occurred in may areas of the ACT where speed cameras are installed, so the simplistic argument that cameras reduce accidents is false.

The ACT road toll has stayed relatively steady since the introduction of speed cameras, and any decline in fatalities in this time could be apportioned equally to safer cars, differing weather conditions, luck, or even variables such as greater access to mobile phones to report and respond to emergency calls for faster paramedic treatment, etc etc. So I can’t buy the claim that speed cameras save lives.

And the idea that speed cameras change the culture of speeding? Consider this. Cameras constantly catch a similar number of people each year, and government budget forecasts incorporate raised expectations of infringements issued when calculating forward revenue streams. No matter whether this increase may be due to more cameras or speedometer fatigue by drivers, it clearly shows that the fundamental culture is not changing. Speed cameras are purely and simply a voluntary additional tax.

What really made me cross the last time I saw a speed camera infringement notice (issued to a colleague)was that it was made out like a phone bill with lots of easy payment options (pay by phone or net, Bpay etc) to make the revenue collection process as easy as possible. An incriminating photo as proof isn’t even included by default, no doubt to keep costs down and to maximise the return. No advice about the consequences of excessive speed or incremental increases of speed on stopping distances. No advice to reconsider your attitude towards those who share the road with you. Just pay up, please. Soon as you can, thanks. See you again soon.

BTW over the last 25 years of driving my last speeding fine was in 1989, issued on the spot. I have never had a fine since, so don’t think the above rant is from a serial speed camera sucker.

And it ain’t me – my cruiser couldn’t get to 204 (I don’t think) and if it did, I’m not sure I’d want to be on it.

Have the rozzers been to your place yet Al?

Rawhide Kid, if you gave the suggestion of a front licence plate a bit of thought, you’d realise that there are a myriad of safety and design issues. That’s why no western country has them now, and why, when they did early last century, they were removed.

The Axe Man said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

Another good reason to have a number plate on the front of the Bike. That’s is if indeed its registered.

Or, we could, you know, have the camera take photos from behind

The AMC is against it
http://www.amc.asn.au/node/4

and various state based organisations
http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/33.html

How about we have identifying marks on the sides of cars so we can take a photo of the side rather than the back or front

there are reasons as to why that camera will only take front photos, some of which i cant go into, Also as for side photos the cameras have to be pointed at on-coming or away-going traffic, or they cannot detect the correct speed.

georgesgenitals said :

“Superintendent of Traffic, Mark Colbran said this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Unless they get a witness, I don’t think they have a choice.

As if. Since when do cops need independent witnesses to issue a summons or sworn statement.

Many a young driver has suffered at the hands of the cops who can and do make up offences and are (obviously) believed over the victim.

Like speed cameras, it’s just a risk of driving.

If those copulators did get the bike’s rego number all they need to do is find the bike, then the rider, and he’s gone mate, gone.

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

Another good reason to have a number plate on the front of the Bike. That’s is if indeed its registered.

Or, we could, you know, have the camera take photos from behind

The AMC is against it
http://www.amc.asn.au/node/4

and various state based organisations
http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/33.html

How about we have identifying marks on the sides of cars so we can take a photo of the side rather than the back or front

“Superintendent of Traffic, Mark Colbran said this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Unless they get a witness, I don’t think they have a choice.

KB1971: I still wouldn’t even try that at anything but a deserted road.

Reprobate: you would dismiss the entire concept because of one anomalous outlier?

Most people don’t travel past speed cameras at 200+kph.

Is that his headlight on in the middle of the day??

Better not let joepublic see it.
He’d have a fit.
lol

I can go way faster on my Ducati.

Not only is this guy dumb, but poor aswell

Reprobate said :

…..if I was travelling along at 100km/h I’d probably have been pretty shocked/distracted by someone overtaking at that velocity) but it does highlight that cameras are great for generating a voluntary taxation invoice for Joe Average tootling along just over the limit, whereas they are totally ineffective against those who drive/ride at reckless speeds.

It’s all about the speed differential. You’re travelling at 100 km/h on a road with a speed limit of 100 km/h, you won’t be expecting a vehicle to pass you going at twice your speed.

That speed differential argument works both ways. You’re travelling at 100 km/h on a road with a speed limit of 100 km/h and you come up behind a car travelling at say 60 km/h – that is almost as unreasonable in my opinion.

Police & politicians like to point to reckless drivers/riders like our as-yet unknown biker when they say speeding is dangerous – while most of the time the people they catch (via speed cameras) will be guilty of little more than drifting slightly above the speed limit.

D’oh – me and my big mouth…

Gungahlin Al said :

Arai helmet – just like mine actually!

Found him!

Reprobate said :

So in summary:

The rider apparently survived travelling along the Parkway at twice the legal limit without crashing or his blood turning to sewage.
The speed camera could not positively identify a bike or it’s rider breaking the law – fail.
The speed camera could not prevent the rider from speeding – fail.
The speed camera did not deter the rider from speeding – fail.

I don’t condone the rider’s behaviour (and if I was travelling along at 100km/h I’d probably have been pretty shocked/distracted by someone overtaking at that velocity) but it does highlight that cameras are great for generating a voluntary taxation invoice for Joe Average tootling along just over the limit, whereas they are totally ineffective against those who drive/ride at reckless speeds.

He was running from the cops who were attempting to pull him over. I doubt the camera even occurred to him. At least the camera gives the cops the opportunity to identify the guy.

On your logic the cops must have failed as well.

So in summary:

The rider apparently survived travelling along the Parkway at twice the legal limit without crashing or his blood turning to sewage.
The speed camera could not positively identify a bike or it’s rider breaking the law – fail.
The speed camera could not prevent the rider from speeding – fail.
The speed camera did not deter the rider from speeding – fail.

I don’t condone the rider’s behaviour (and if I was travelling along at 100km/h I’d probably have been pretty shocked/distracted by someone overtaking at that velocity) but it does highlight that cameras are great for generating a voluntary taxation invoice for Joe Average tootling along just over the limit, whereas they are totally ineffective against those who drive/ride at reckless speeds.

Arai helmet – just like mine actually!

braddonboy said :

Dunno that doing 200kmh+ in a straight line along the Parkway indicates the guy can ride. What it does indicate tho’ is that he’s a bloody idot. Pity he didn’t blow a tyre, really.

Yup, anyone can go fast in a straight line…….

Lardman, the Parkway is not that busy in the middle of the day, what he did could be easily done.

braddonboy said :

Dunno that doing 200kmh+ in a straight line along the Parkway indicates the guy can ride.

Yup, I can do 200km/h in a straight line, and I’m pretty unco.

Does anyone know if the rules re: breaking off dangerous chases are the same for motorcycles as cars? And for cop bikes vrs cop cars?

I mean, really speed is only part of the equation when thinking about danger. Speed affects distance travelled while you are reacting to something, but when actually thinking about a crash, the energy in the vehicle would be more relevant, and that is going to depend on the weight of the vehicle….

Dunno that doing 200kmh+ in a straight line along the Parkway indicates the guy can ride. What it does indicate tho’ is that he’s a bloody idot. Pity he didn’t blow a tyre, really.

Unless the coppers chasing had a witness to his rear number plate, that’s circumstantial evidence and I don’t think you’d be able to use it @RAGD

That said though, fair effort doing 200+ down a busy road in the middle of the day. He’d have a job in touring bikes if he wanted…

Pretty good pic, considering he was alledgedly riding at 200+ km/h. If they know the make and model of the bike, surely there aren’t that many of the same bike registered in ACT, can’t they track them down that way? Or have I seen too much CSI?

Black MV Augusta’s aren’t very common bikes. I imagine they will find him pretty easily by searching the ACT Rego database (assuming the bike has been registered)

What!! a motorcylist not doing the speed limit? No way……….

Another good reason to have a number plate on the front of the Bike. That’s is if indeed its registered.

I’m assuming that the plates were fake? Or did he also run from the cops so fast that they couldn’t read them?

Don’t know if he ca hide but he sure can ride!

I hope they catch him. He needs a good slap on the wrist and they need to tell him he is a naughty boy.